I get it, but we actually have made substantial progress over the last several decades in numerous medical fields. Look at the long term improvement in cancer outcomes. Every time a new treatment comes out, there are always people saying that only the rich will ever be able to afford it. And yet, in the long term, they’re wrong every time.
Depends on the zombie. But most zombies as portrayed in popular media are not capable of punching you, hitting you, or even using objects in any meaningful way. A zombie trapped in a locked car will stay there indefinitely, unless they just happen to hit the unlock button through their random flailing.
Zombies themselves are never capable. It’s their durability, relentlessness, and numbers that make them a terrifying threat.
Have you petitioned your government to send MANPADS and other concealable, man-portable weaponry to groups in the US?
Because that’s realistically what it would take. The US and NATO countries started helping Ukraine it its fight by sending in these types of man-portable weapons, drones, etc. They’re they type of thing that’s small enough to be snuck over a border in large numbers. And they’re the types of weaponry that could actually allow militia groups in the US, armed with civilian weaponry, to plausibly resist the military in any real capacity. Of course, the only source for this type of weaponry is other nation states.
Realistically, any rebellion would need extensive foreign support. Just like every other rebellion/insurrection that’s happened over the last century or more.
So, I ask again, how many letters, emails, and phone calls have you made to your leaders, encouraging them to send military grade weaponry to US resistance groups?
The US military will be defeated financially, not on the battlefield. In the end, the US empire is collapsing for the same reason every other empire in history has collapsed. Ultimately they are not financially sustainable. When you build your whole economic model on continued expansion and exploitation, the whole thing collapses once you reach hard limits and can no longer expand.
The US is great at invading other countries
Be careful. The US actually is fantastic at invading other countries. At least we’re really good at the “bomb the existing regime to hell and topple it” part of the process. We’re great at invading other countries; we’re just not so good at running them after.
But this is the type of invasion the US actually is pretty good at. The US isn’t proposing taking invading and then hoping to set up an independent democracy that for some reason remains our friend. That’s what we tried in Iraq, and it failed because you can’t just impose your will on a foreign population. You can’t make someone love you. You can’t make a nation willingly adopt your style of government.
But invading Greenland? This isn’t a Middle East misadventure, invading a highly populated country. This is the US coming to a territory and saying, “this is ours now.” This means a few things.
First, winning hearts and minds doesn’t matter. Once annexed and legally part of the US, if they try to break away, they’re not just insurgents, they’re rebels. Look at General Sherman for how the US has treated rebel territories. In Iraq, the theme was always, “at the end of the day, we’re not going to be running this place, we need the Iraqis to be able to run it, hopefully without hating our guts.” With Greenland, the theme would be, “we’re here for the land and resources. This is US territory now. If some Americans want to secede from the rest of America, well we know historically how to handle that…”
Second, do you know why Greenland’s mining resources are so underdeveloped? It’s because there are only 56,000 Greenlanders. If they wanted to seriously open up their mining resources, they would have to bring in outside companies to really develop them. And this would require bringing in large numbers of foreign workers, mining experts, their families, etc. Realistically, the existing Greenlander population would likely become a minority group. Hell, the existing number of Greenlanders is so small, a rebellion could likely be dealt with by the US criminal justice system, the military wouldn’t even be required.
The annexation of Greenland would look nothing like the invasion of Iraq or even a hypothetical annexation of Canada or Mexico. Making the territory a US state would mean any American citizen could move there. Any company could bring in workers to start exploiting mining claims. It would look more like the annexation of Texas. (Where the US had thousands of US citizens illegally move to the sparsely populated territory, and then push for annexation.) And if there was any kind insurgency, the US would treat it far harsher than it did the insurgencies of Iraq or Afghanistan.
That’s not to say this would be a good thing, it wouldn’t. In many ways it would be much worse than the invasion of Iraq. It would be far more brutal and would result in the existing Greenlanders becoming a small ethnic minority in what is now their own country. And any insurgency would be brutally repressed in the manner of the US Civil War. And while insurgencies can pull off wonders, scale still matters. Whatever tiny insurgency a group of 56,000 people, people completely dependent on imported food and goods, can manage to produce? That is not something that can credibly stand up to the US military. Hell, it couldn’t even stand up to the FBI. They could raise some heroic 5,000 man rebel force, and the US could just have them all arrested.
At the end of the day, 56,000 people cannot resist the might of 330 million. Smaller nations can drive out larger foreign invaders, but only if they’re at least of a similar order of magnitude of population. Ukraine can plausibly fight off Russia. A tiny city state can’t.
FWIW, at least one of the examples they cover actively requires manual edits to allow a report to be completed.
And how do you think that would work in the real world? In a time crunch environment, aka every workplace under the Sun, you’ll do what you have to do. They’ll figure out the minimum amount of change needed to count as “human edited,” do that, and rubber stamp the rest. Delete and add three periods and click “submit.” That’s how mandatory edits will work in practice.
How convenient, blaming things like homophobia and racism on the rich absolves you of any personal responsibility.
There’s wealthy and then there’s wealthy. How many billionaires are on the sex offender registry? You don’t really reach “above the law” levels of wealth until you start reaching that level.
And some people use full sized buses as their personal vehicles. Weird edge cases aren’t how we define words. Your exception proves the rule. This isn’t “umm actually,” this is you being deliberately obtuse.
We’re talking about how 99% of people actually interact with these machines, not a handful of oddballs living in rural Alaskan homesteads. Those few rare edge cases are not how words are defined.
Planes, for 99% of the population, are more like buses than cars. When people say, “flying car,” they specifically mean a flying vehicle that:
This is what a flying car is, and it’s why planes are not flying cars.
Have you literally never seen any media depicting flying cars? Are you really that incapable of seeming the difference between this:
And this?:
For 99% of the population, the idea of using the latter for a personal vehicle is comical. You need to have a pilot’s license, and you need to own a god-damn runway in order to use it as a personal vehicle! The vision of a flying car has always been something that you could park in an ordinary suburban garage, pull it out into the driveway, and vertically takeoff without requiring you to own a giant piece of land. This is why you only see two types of people use planes for personal transport - the incredibly wealthy, or folks who live in extremely rural areas where large amounts of land are comically cheap. And it has to be something you can keep on your own land. If you have to drive to an airport to use it, you’re no longer fulfilling the point-to-point on-demand dream that the vision of flying cars represents.
Again, you need to focus on the social definition, not the technical one.
Yeah, the grocery store and food supply chains have been jacking up prices on everyone. Restaurants aren’t somehow magically immune from paying the higher food prices.
Translation: we found some mentally ill kid, groomed him into participating an imaginary terrorist attack, and charged him once we had done enough for us to nail him.
I guess the real questions are whether the review process is faster than writing a manual summary and whether there would be a scenario where manual review is neglected in the future.
And how in Hell’s name do you propose they actually check these reports? Sure, it’s bloody obvious if the report claims some fantastical event that clearly didn’t happen. But what if the LLM spits out a reasonable-sounding, but completely fake summary? We’re talking about automatic video summaries here. The only way to correct them would be to manually watch through all the video yourself and to compare it to the AI-generated reports. Simply spot checking will not work, as the errors are random and can appear anywhere. And if you have to manually watch all the video anyway, there’s not much point in bothering with the LLM, is there?
These systems only have the potential to save time if you’re content with shit-tier work.
I don’t think it’s possible to make an LLM image generator that can’t generate child pornography. (Maybe you can chain it so it will refuse requests to do so, but the models will always retain the capability at their core.)
As long as the AI is trained on data that contains:
The model will have the capability to produce child pornography. As long as it knows what pornography is, what an adult is, and what a child is, it will be able to map the features of adult pornography onto images of children. Trying to train an AI without all three of these things would be nearly impossible and would severely hamper the AIs abilities to do perfectly useful and legal things. You could just not include any images of children in the training data, but then the LLM couldn’t create AI-edited images of family photos or generate perfectly harmless SFW images involving kids. And you can’t really exclude porn from the data, as it’s all over the net, and LLM providers would actually prefer if their models can generate explicit imagery. They’ve openly stated their intention to use these tools to generate revenue from adult content.
That doesn’t matter at all. Simulated child porn has been illegal in the US for over 20 years.
I wonder if there’s something about being a billionaire that just drives you to pedophilia. Maybe when you already have so much money that you can effectively do whatever you want, and you know that people like you don’t ever face justice? Maybe sleeping with minors is like the ultimate taboo, the thing you do simply to fundamentally show how different you are from the common rabble. You can fuck 12 year olds and get away with it. Maybe it’s a sick thrill to people who otherwise have very little novelty or joy in their lives.
They really don’t have a giant supply of labor to send the the front lines. The problem is that every man you draft for the front lines is another man that isn’t working in the munitions factories, the farms, or any of the innumerable industries needed to keep a war effort going. Or the man they draft is working a non-defense job but paying the taxes needed to pay for all this.
Yes, they could send ten million naked men to the front armed with nothing but pointy sticks, but that would not win them the war.
Exactly. This man has a rapist mentality.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
The EU is not capable of defending Greenland from an American invasion. They lack the kind of expeditionary military needed to do it. The best they could do is send large quantities of weapons that could be used by insurgents against the invaders.
But really, there’s not much even that could do. Greenland has a population of 56,000, even if the EU was willing to arm an insurgency. The US has a population of 330,000,000. Insurgencies can pull off some real underdog miracles, but there’s a limit. Ukraine, despite being outnumbered, can resist Russia through wits and bravery. But this would be like Vatican City trying to resist the Russian military.
Hell, we imagine Greenland as this vast territory, one that would be as difficult to subjugate as Afghanistan. But look at how Greenland is actually populated. Greenland isn’t really a country in the traditional sense. It’s basically five small towns.. Seriously, five towns, with populations of 24,000, 11,000, 9,000, 6,000, and 6,000. Occupy those five towns and you now control 99% of Greenland’s population. The countryside is virtually empty except for some scattered mining camps. This isn’t a territory that can support a large rural insurgency like Vietnam or Afghanistan.